Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
649
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 16:35:00 -
[61] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Dracones wrote: There needs to be a way for bounty hunters to get intel on player location(last seen in X type of thing) and to have better overview controls for bounty targets.
You mean, like a locator agent? There needs to be something that directs players to them. Like a tab in the bounty window that will allow you to find locator agents like you can with mission agents. I'm willing to bet that most people don't even know that there is such a thing. It took a few years before I understood that's how people could find you. Even today I still have no idea how to locate a locator agent. If they're listed under a different name in the agent finder then maybe they need to be clearly listed as locator agents. You mean like "EVE agents dot com" that lets you quickly see all the locator agents, even filtering by system, region, corp they work for, ect.?
Let me say this one more time.
If you DON'T KNOW THEY EXIST, you won't look for them.
You can't find something you're unaware of. Very simple concept.
Agent finders, on a website, do not direct anyone to the fact that an agent locator exists. It's a safe bet, that most people aren't aware that a locator agent even exists. Even then, just like there's an agent locator in game that will direct you to any mission agent, you should also be able to find the locator ones with the same tool. |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
595
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 16:38:00 -
[62] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
I think this is a good idea. We had a similar story, but didn't have time to do anything with it for Retribution. I think there should be leverage to increase the payout up to around 30%, for kills on people with high bounty. Killing someone in the top 10 most wanted should definitely count for more.
I actually think that the guy topping the top 10 list should pay out 50% of the ship value and then scale down to 30% for the guy on the bottom.
I.E.
- 50%
- 48%
- 46%
- 44%
- 42%
- 40%
- 38%
- 36%
- 34%
- 32%
I can't be bothered to figure out the numbers to exactly go from 50% to 30%, but it wont be far off that.
You'll definitely see people shift off the top 10 list that way yet most people wont see a difference. "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
Ginger Barbarella
State War Academy Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 16:38:00 -
[63] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:The % payout is to prevent exploit via self-gank.
Only if you're seriously friggin' bored and afraid of the big glowing ball in the sky outside your front door. Fly Minmatar Air --- "Trust in the Rust!" |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
101
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 16:44:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:The % payout is to prevent exploit via self-gank. Only if you're seriously friggin' bored and afraid of the big glowing ball in the sky outside your front door.
Or want to remove your bounty so that people don't try to kill you to collect it. Or if you want to profit by some fool having put a bounty on you in a system that is easily exploited for self-gank profit.
|
Ezra Tair
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
97
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 16:52:00 -
[65] - Quote
My only beef with the current bounty system is that there is no incentive for chasing them down. It would seem a vast majority of the time it pays out on losses the 'bountee' would have lost regardless in the course of normal PvP activities. So in that respect I don't think you will regularly have some scenario where someone is stalked and killed in his rupture for the 3million bounty payout. of the 300million placed on him. Nor would it really frighting someone who expects to lose ships regularly.
I do think it works when people add a bounty to a corp. Then they pay someone else to wardec that corp as their is a incentive to chase them down at that point. If the bounty system were re-branded in that light, it would be pretty swell. You open a page, browse though offers (which include a price point that both pays for the war dec, and payouts on kills, select it and have war declared auto-magically. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1210
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 17:31:00 -
[66] - Quote
i don't think that the dude who put a bounty on someone should be able to withdraw it. The victim (with the bounty) however should have a way to bribe the bounty away. Let him pay 5x the amount of the bounty and you have the same effect as a ship explosion... just as 6x isk sink. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
655
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 17:47:00 -
[67] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:i don't think that the dude who put a bounty on someone should be able to withdraw it. Its not a wallet. The victim (with the bounty) however should have a way to bribe the bounty away. Let him pay 5x the amount of the bounty and you have the same effect as a ship explosion... just as 6x isk sink.
edit: since devs are reading this thread.. it would be great if the bounty/killmail notification mails would contain a link to the killmail The only person you should ever be able to bribe to remove a bounty, is the person that placed it.
Why would a 3rd party have anything to do with the money I'm willing to pay another individual to kill you?
If I can remove a bounty I place though, I may be willing to do so if you paid the cost of removal, and then some. CONCORD or some random NPC who will remove MY bounty I placed on you is nonsensicle. What in the world does that guy have to do with ME. Nothing.
The amount you ultimately lose is irrelevant to me. I don't care if it's in the cost of a shuttle or the cost of a battleship, but I expect you to get BLOWN UP, not "lose isk". I want you to be a TARGET.
Paying to remove the bounty doesn't appease the person who put it on you in the hopes that someone else will blow you up for it; it doesn't matter if you pay more then I put on you. I didn't put it there so you can pay to remove it, I put it there so that you're a target while in space.
No tool should allow you to circumvent content that is intended to be entirely player driven. The only peson who should remove the bounty I put on another person a bounty hunter, or myself. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
193
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:08:00 -
[68] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=180051&find=unread
I started a thread the other day about the 20% thing making people with large bounties no more worth hunting down than someone will a smaller bounty.
I'm not so worried about the overal payout, as I am the fact that having many billions of isk on your head means only you can be shot a few more times than the guy with a few billion less.
The payout system has no incentive to actually go looking for the most wanted people in New Eden. The bounty itself should be a modifier that adds small percentages to the total payout based on how high the bounty goes; to a limit.
I think this is a good idea. We had a similar story, but didn't have time to do anything with it for Retribution. I think there should be leverage to increase the payout up to around 30%, for kills on people with high bounty. Killing someone in the top 10 most wanted should definitely count for more.
Start with a flat +x% for the #1 spot then reduce it by y as you drop down the list this way you can decide whether to make the top 10, 20, 50 or 100 most wanted, more wanted than the lesser commoners.
eg +10% @#1 down to +1% @#10 making bounty payouts 21-30% for the top10 most wanted and 20% for the plebians
shouldnt be too hard to code |
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
925
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:17:00 -
[69] - Quote
Why be timid about it. Make it 75% across the board.
Still waiting for a reason why lower is better. "The nice thing about quotes is that they give us a nodding acquaintance with the originator which is often socially impressive." ~Kenneth Williams |
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
173
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:25:00 -
[70] - Quote
So does anyone know the actual math on how the payout is calculated? Most the payouts I've seen have been much closer to 10% than 20%.
If the bounty payout is dynamic and based on the insurance level of the blown up ship I think it can be increased for ships that are insured at lower levels, or insurance on ships that have a low insurance payout such as tech 2 ships.
|
|
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
173
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:29:00 -
[71] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:Why be timid about it. Make it 75% across the board.
Still waiting for a reason why lower is better.
Here's your reason:
Blowing up your ship with an alt to collect 75% bounty payout calculated with a 100 million bounty
Cost to blow up ships (platinum insurance 30% of hull cost to insure): 40 million
Amount of bounty collected: 100 million
Profit to the person that has a bounty: 60 million
Pretty good way to make money it seems. Increase of 75% across the board isn't a good idea, as I posted above some increase could be worth doing provided the payout system is taking into account the level of insurance on the destroyed assets. |
NEONOVUS
Saablast Followers
60
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:33:00 -
[72] - Quote
The first hing to be remembered is the bounty should always be about lost ISK The red numbers. This makes it much easier to prevent exploits. Next insurance payouts. If the insurance pays 75% of the ship, you should only get the last 25%+destroyed lootables*bounty modifier. So its Bounty payout modifier * ((value of hull*(1-insurance percentage))+rigs+subsystems+destroyed mods and cargo)
Now that formula works as it ensures the target suffers loss. Now as for the salvage issue, that will be self moderating. The more you sell the cheaper it becomes and thus the less you can use to make isk back.
Now insurance. The crux of the problem. To high self ganking is good, to low and ships cant be rebought easily. Perhaps modifiers to the policy should be paid. Lose it to not Concord NPCs, full payout of your insurance. Lose it in a nonsuspect pvp fight (war decs,limited engagements), 80% payout Lose it as a suspect 50% As an outlaw 30% to Concord 0%
Now this would work well and all until null, but I have little experience there so someone else can come up with a refinement or something new. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
658
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:37:00 -
[73] - Quote
Silk daShocka wrote:So does anyone know the actual math on how the payout is calculated? Most the payouts I've seen have been much closer to 10% than 20%.
If the bounty payout is dynamic and based on the insurance level of the blown up ship I think it can be increased for ships that are insured at lower levels, or insurance on ships that have a low insurance payout such as tech 2 ships.
Are you ding the maths based on what was actually destroyed, or the total value of what the person lost.
It's only what isn't recovered. If it drops it's not included in the payout.
Edit: Someone else will have to varify if it accounts for insurance, so that you only get 20% of whatever the insurance didn't pay out. I'm hoping that it doesn't do that, it just seems excessive to me. That doesn't mean that if it does work that way that there isn't a good reason for it that I'm just not able to see. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
154
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:44:00 -
[74] - Quote
I don't think a plain increase of the "safe" 20% value is a good idea.
What I'd rather see and It should have the same net result is the possibility for the bounty-placing-person to set higher payout values.
These could be set after the usual corp/alliance/standings, but also for specific players/corps/alliances.
For example I trust my friends not to make shady deals with my target and thus set their payout value to 100% of loss value. Or I contact a specific bounty-hunter corporation, that I trust to be corruption-free and set their payout value up.
P.S: Something that people should be aware of btw is that insurance return is not a part of 20% loss value, so even with 100% loss value a target would not be able to gain money, if all module/ship prices were 100% accurate. Fluctuations in item prices and manipulation of these are what makes "alt-killing" worthwhile with a higher payout ratio. |
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
173
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:45:00 -
[75] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote: Now insurance. The crux of the problem. To high self ganking is good, to low and ships cant be rebought easily. Perhaps modifiers to the policy should be paid. Lose it to not Concord NPCs, full payout of your insurance. Lose it in a nonsuspect pvp fight (war decs,limited engagements), 80% payout Lose it as a suspect 50% As an outlaw 30% to Concord 0%
Now this would work well and all until null, but I have little experience there so someone else can come up with a refinement or something new.
I don't see how these insurance changes will change self ganking to remove bounties. You aren't going to be a suspect, an outlaw, a war dec target to your alt nor lose your ship to concord. I'm not sure aobut limited engagements I dont even remember how that one works.
If insurance would be changed I think CCP should take the route that the cost to insure your ship will increase based on your insured losses, much like they would IRL. Meaning if you keep losing ships that are platinum insured, the cost to insure platinum will increase with every ship you lose in this way. They could make the cost to insure platinum go down as well with every downtime or w/e by a certain amount that is considered fair and balanced. |
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
925
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:45:00 -
[76] - Quote
Silk daShocka wrote:Pretty good way to make money it seems. Increase of 75% across the board isn't a good idea, as I posted above some increase could be worth doing provided the payout system is taking into account the level of insurance on the destroyed assets.
Yeah, i forgot about insurance. "The nice thing about quotes is that they give us a nodding acquaintance with the originator which is often socially impressive." ~Kenneth Williams |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10789
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:46:00 -
[77] - Quote
Ronan Connor wrote:Couple the bounty payout to the standings as well.
Meaning standing of 5 gives you only 5%, standing of 0 = 20%, standing of -5 = 30%, below -5 = 40%.
I dont like placing bounties on positive with a sec status at all, but make a positive sec status at least count for something! What relevance do NPC standings have, to a player driven standings bounty system?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
173
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:48:00 -
[78] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Silk daShocka wrote:So does anyone know the actual math on how the payout is calculated? Most the payouts I've seen have been much closer to 10% than 20%.
If the bounty payout is dynamic and based on the insurance level of the blown up ship I think it can be increased for ships that are insured at lower levels, or insurance on ships that have a low insurance payout such as tech 2 ships.
Are you ding the maths based on what was actually destroyed, or the total value of what the person lost. It's only what isn't recovered. If it drops it's not included in the payout. Edit: Someone else will have to varify if it accounts for insurance, so that you only get 20% of whatever the insurance didn't pay out. I'm hoping that it doesn't do that, it just seems excessive to me. That doesn't mean that if it does work that way that there isn't a good reason for it that I'm just not able to see.
Yep it could very well be stuff that dropped. I merely looked at the total payout vs. teh total value and noticed the payouts were closer to 10%. |
La Volpe DaFlorence
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:48:00 -
[79] - Quote
The problem we have is that either we have it too low to make bounty collecting worthwhile, or too high so that self-ganking becomes possible. Is there any kind of middle ground? :> |
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
173
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:50:00 -
[80] - Quote
Sheynan wrote:I don't think a plain increase of the "safe" 20% value is a good idea.
P.S: Something that people should be aware of btw is that insurance return is not a part of 20% loss value, so even with 100% loss value a target would not be able to gain money, if all module/ship prices were 100% accurate. Fluctuations in item prices and manipulation of these are what makes "alt-killing" worthwhile with a higher payout ratio.
I don't really understand what you mean here, but I"m assuming that what your saying is that a platinum insured ship will not give a bounty payout at all provided it has nothing fitted? |
|
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
658
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:51:00 -
[81] - Quote
Silk daShocka wrote:NEONOVUS wrote: Now insurance. The crux of the problem. To high self ganking is good, to low and ships cant be rebought easily. Perhaps modifiers to the policy should be paid. Lose it to not Concord NPCs, full payout of your insurance. Lose it in a nonsuspect pvp fight (war decs,limited engagements), 80% payout Lose it as a suspect 50% As an outlaw 30% to Concord 0%
Now this would work well and all until null, but I have little experience there so someone else can come up with a refinement or something new.
I don't see how these insurance changes will change self ganking to remove bounties. You aren't going to be a suspect, an outlaw, a war dec target to your alt nor lose your ship to concord. I'm not sure aobut limited engagements I dont even remember how that one works. If insurance would be changed I think CCP should take the route that the cost to insure your ship will increase based on your insured losses, much like they would IRL. Meaning if you keep losing ships that are platinum insured, the cost to insure platinum will increase with every ship you lose in this way. They could make the cost to insure platinum go down as well with every downtime or w/e by a certain amount that is considered fair and balanced. That would make insurance even more pointless for guys in null sec or who actively engage in war with other corps. It just penalizes even further people who get blown up often because they actually take advantage of aspects of the game that other do not.
I think the insurance issues are issues unto themselves, and shouldn't have any real impact on the bounty system and vice versa. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
154
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:55:00 -
[82] - Quote
Insurance is not included in the 20% value like it is not included in FW "bounty" payouts (LP payouts).
However even a general 75% loss value would be enough to break the system. You don't need to look at insurance, you need to look at haulers !
The estimated prices in EVE struggle to be accurate, but fluctations occur regularly. And on lower frequented items, these can be immense. The person with the bounty would fill his hauler with a ton of goods where the estimated value is 25% lower than the "true" market value and then kill himself with an alt to get all his bounty neutralized plus all the bonus cash for items below said 25%. The bounty system would be useless again, people would stop trusting it and no one would place bounties anymore.
Thus I personally think the possiblity for the bounty-placer to set the payout higher for specific trusted parties is a better way to go, as mentioned above.
EDIT: Silk daShocka wrote:
I don't really understand what you mean here, but I"m assuming that what your saying is that a platinum insured ship will not give a bounty payout at all provided it has nothing fitted?
Every insurance costs a specific amount of ISK, so the return value is rarely 100% as sufficiently high market fluctuations rarely happen with T1-ships. But the bounty payout will be very small nevertheless. |
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
173
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:02:00 -
[83] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote: That would make insurance even more pointless for guys in null sec or who actively engage in war with other corps. It just penalizes even further people who get blown up often because they actually take advantage of aspects of the game that other do not.
I think the insurance issues are issues unto themselves, and shouldn't have any real impact on the bounty system and vice versa.
It would only be pointless if you keep losing ships on a regular basis really. It does penalize people that get blown up often, but the simple solution to that is stop getting blown up often or deal with the loss. It would just further reinforce the risk and consequence mechanics that are in eve as well as diminish a huge isk faucet. The downside to this, is the bigger alliances that have alot of ISK to throw at SRP would probably be gaining an advantage since having a good SRP will mean even more.
But then again I was only making that suggestion as an alternative to the suggestion that was presented. I don't really think insurance needs to be changed. |
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
173
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:02:00 -
[84] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote: That would make insurance even more pointless for guys in null sec or who actively engage in war with other corps. It just penalizes even further people who get blown up often because they actually take advantage of aspects of the game that other do not.
I think the insurance issues are issues unto themselves, and shouldn't have any real impact on the bounty system and vice versa.
It would only be pointless if you keep losing ships on a regular basis really. It does penalize people that get blown up often, but the simple solution to that is stop getting blown up often or deal with the loss. It would just further reinforce the risk and consequence mechanics that are in eve as well as diminish a huge isk faucet. The downside to this, is the bigger alliances that have alot of ISK to throw at SRP would probably be gaining an advantage since having a good SRP will mean even more.
But then again I was only making that suggestion as an alternative to the suggestion that was presented. I don't really think insurance needs to be changed aside from perhaps the default payout. |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
790
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:08:00 -
[85] - Quote
i think the bounty should be 90% of the ship's value minus insurance. that way you'll never be able to profit from insuring and destroying your own ships, yet people who want to claim your bounty get a nice big slice of the cake. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1210
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:15:00 -
[86] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Bienator II wrote:i don't think that the dude who put a bounty on someone should be able to withdraw it. Its not a wallet. The victim (with the bounty) however should have a way to bribe the bounty away. Let him pay 5x the amount of the bounty and you have the same effect as a ship explosion... just as 6x isk sink.
edit: since devs are reading this thread.. it would be great if the bounty/killmail notification mails would contain a link to the killmail The only person you should ever be able to bribe to remove a bounty, is the person that placed it. the person who placed bounty on you wanted to cause damage and he did. you payed 5x the amount of isk to get rid of the bounty. The person who placed bounty on your head wants to see you explode. Using it for scams would be the only usecase for making a bounty pool to a wallet. It screams for exploit. People would place bounty on random people and hope for compensation to withdraw the bounty again. Having a feature which is exclusively used for scams is not a sandbox. Its like intentionally breaking the sandbox. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
658
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:22:00 -
[87] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: the person who placed bounty on you wanted to cause damage and he did. you payed 5x the amount of isk to get rid of the bounty. The person who placed bounty on your head wants to see you explode. Using it for scams would be the only usecase for making a bounty pool to a wallet. It screams for exploit. People would place bounty on random people and hope for compensation to withdraw the bounty again. Having a feature which is exclusively used for scams is not a sandbox. Its like intentionally breaking the sandbox.
You cant say that because someone will do something, everyone will do it.
Not everyone would use it to scam. No more than not everyone uses the margin trading skill to scam, or contracts to scam, or corp recruiting to scam.
If CCP were to do things based on whether or not other people will do something CCP endorses -scamming- they'd have to remove most of the game.
Nor does that justify being able to use a 3rd party mechanic to remove a bounty I placed on you. It's not all about you losing 5x the isk, it's about you being a target when you fly around. I want you to be a target, not pay an NPC to clear your bounty.
The only people that would want to pay to remove a bounty are people who are worried about being blown up. If you're worried about getting blown up you shouldn't be playing EVE.
So I say again, the only way you should ever be able to pay to have a bounty removed, is to pay the person that put it on you or for a bounty hunter to remove it for you.
Being able to scam, or deal dishonorably, with another person is irrelevant. There's a reason you can't change your name, or remove your corp history. What you DO is contributes to how other people deal with you. if you scam, it gets around, and people don't deal with you. The bounty system shoudn't be an exception to the way the rest of the game works. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
658
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:26:00 -
[88] - Quote
I'm going to use a stupid real world anaology.
I'm a mobster.
You're a judge.
I put a bounty on you.
In what world are you able to go to someone other than me to remove that bounty?
And why should it be any different in EVE. It's a bounty system, it should work like a bounty system. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
102
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:33:00 -
[89] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:Why be timid about it. Make it 75% across the board.
Still waiting for a reason why lower is better.
Reason lower is better: 1) If payout is 20%, then the character with a bounty has to lose 5x value ships as the bounty. So, you anger me, I put a billion ISK bounty on you, now you have to lose 5 billion ISK to get rid of the bounty. That is an incentive for me to bounty you. I am hurting you 5x as I'm hurting myself.
75% payout, I spend 1 billion ISK so you have to lose 1.333B ISK worth of ships? I'm hurting you only 1.3x as much as I'm hurting myself. Heck, why bother putting a bounty on anyone.
2) At 20% payout, I blow up a 100M ISK T2, get 20M ISK and 40M ISK salvage. No reason to altf-kill myself to collect the bounty.
At 75%, I hop in a 100M ISK T2, alt-kill myself, collect 75M ISK bounty and 40 million salvage.
The reasons are there, even if you don't like them. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
102
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:36:00 -
[90] - Quote
Silk daShocka wrote:So does anyone know the actual math on how the payout is calculated? Most the payouts I've seen have been much closer to 10% than 20%.
If the bounty payout is dynamic and based on the insurance level of the blown up ship I think it can be increased for ships that are insured at lower levels, or insurance on ships that have a low insurance payout such as tech 2 ships.
As I understand it, the math is: 20% of ( market value of the destroyed ship + non-dropped modules (dropped do not count) - max insurance payout whether you had the ship insured or not) .
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |